AH v Canada Employment Insurance Commission

AH v Canada Employment Insurance Commission

The Appeal Division refused leave because the General Division's findings that the claimant was outside Canada and had not demonstrated availability for work were consistent with the unamended statutory and regulatory requirements; the evolution of remote work during the pandemic does not change the legal availability test and therefore did not give the claimant an arguable case of an important factual or legal error.

Citation
2021 SST 96
Parties
Applicant / Claimant: A. H.; Respondent / Commission: Canada Employment Insurance Commission
Court
Social Security Tribunal of Canada
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
15 March 2021
Procedural Posture
Employment Insurance / Leave to Appeal (application Refused)
Outcome
Application to the Appeal Division refused; leave to appeal denied.
Legal Topics
Availability for Work, Disentitlement for Being Outside Canada, COVID 19 Travel Restrictions
Source Language
English
Employment Insurance Administrative Law Social Security Availability for Work Disentitlement for Being Outside Canada COVID 19 Travel Restrictions

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Legal principles 3 Authorities cited 5 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

A. H.

Applicant / Claimant

Canada Employment Insurance Commission

Respondent / Commission

Procedural Posture

Employment Insurance / Leave to Appeal (application Refused)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the General Division made an important error of fact regarding the claimant's absence outside Canada and availability for work
  2. 2 Whether the claimant met EI availability requirements while abroad during the COVID-19 pandemic
  3. 3 Whether any exceptions to disentitlement for being outside Canada apply

Ratio Decidendi

The Appeal Division refused leave because the General Division's findings that the claimant was outside Canada and had not demonstrated availability for work were consistent with the unamended statutory and regulatory requirements; the evolution of remote work during the pandemic does not change the legal availability test and therefore did not give the claimant an arguable case of an important factual or legal error.

Court Disposition

Application to the Appeal Division refused; leave to appeal denied.

Orders

  • Application to the Appeal Division refused.